DOWNLOAD THE BOOK

CHAPTERS OF THE BOOK

I

Ichthyostega

Evolutionists claim that water-dwelling organisms gradually turned into land-dwelling ones. In order to verify these claims, they depict all terrestrial living things and those living in water with similar characteristics as transitional forms. Ichthyostega is a marine creature that lived in the Devonian Period and which, in the evolutionists’ view, represents a transitional form. These creatures were specially created to live in water, and the only reason why evolutionists regard them as transitional forms between fish and amphibians is that they compare a structure on their fins to a foot capable of walking on dry land.

However, there is no scientific validity to this unfounded claim. Living mammals such as the bat are capable of flight, mammals such as the Platypus that lay eggs, and mammals such as whales and dolphins live in the sea.

Such life forms also existed in the past. Ichthyostega lived in the sea, like dolphins, but that does not indicate that it was a transitional forms. On the contrary, it shows that they were an original and stable species. Indeed, according to the theory of evolution, there is no rational basis to proposing them as transitional forms at all.

All the supposedly transitional forms referred to today are the result of such distortions. According to evolutionists, the first movement made using the feet was made by life forms resembling amphibians that walked on the floors of shallow waters. These fish, which include the Coelacanth, were for long described as transitional forms that moved in such a way. Evolutionists claimed that the Coelacanth evolved over the course of time and turned into Ichthyostega, an amphibian. However, this was a completely groundless scenario.

Despite being an evolutionist, even Henry Gee, editor of the well-known magazine Nature, admitted the mistaken and biased attitudes adopted towards Ichthyostega:

A statement that Ichthyostega is a missing link between fishes and later tetrapods reveals far more about our prejudices than about the creature we are supposed to be studying. It shows how much we are imposing a restricted view on reality based on our own limited experience, when reality may be larger, stranger, and more different than we can imagine.219

As his admission shows, there is not a single piece of concrete evidence for any transition from water to land. This came to light with the discovery of a living Coelacanth and once again demonstrated that all the scenarios dreamed up by evolutionists were a fantasy.

Imaginary Human Family Tree, the

The Darwinist claim assumes that modern humans evolved from various ape-like creatures. The assertion is that various transitional forms between modern man and his supposed forbears must have lived during this period, which is assumed to have begun 4 to 5 million years ago. This totally fictitious scenario consists of four basic species:

1.Australopithecus2.Homo habilis3.Homo erectus4.Homo sapiens

One of the reconstructions frequently employed by evolutionists, despite their having no scientific foundation

Evolutionists attach the name Australopithecus, meaning “southern ape,” to the first supposed ape-like ancestors of man. These creatures are in fact an extinct species of ape. There are various types of Australopithecines, some of which are large apes and others of which are smaller and more delicate. (See Australopithecus, the)

The subsequent stage—and genus—in human evolution is classified as Homo, in other words “man.” According to the claim, living things in the Homo genus are more developed than Australopithecus. It is then claimed that H. sapiens, or modern man, emerged in the final phase of this genus’ evolution.

In coming up with the series Australopithecines > Homo habilis > Homo erectus > Homo sapiens, evolutionists give the impression that each one is the ancestor of the one succeeding it. Yet the latest paleoanthropological findings show that Australopithecines, Homo habilis and H. erectus all lived in the same period in different regions of the world. Moreover, some humans belonging to the species Homo erectus were living until very modern times and were present in the same surroundings as Homo sapiens neandertalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens (modern man). This, of course, clearly invalidates the claim that these forms are one another’s ancestors.

Impasse of Chaos Theory, the—See Second Law of Thermodynamics, the (The Law of Entropy)

Aware that the Second Law of Thermodynamics makes evolution impossible, various evolutionist scientists have recently engaged in speculation in order to bridge the gulf between the Second Law and the theory of evolution and to clear away this obstacle.

Of these advocates, the Belgian scientist Ilya Prigogine is the best-known with his claims made in the hope of reconciling Termodynamics and evolution. Starting from the concept of Chaos Theory, Prigogine put forward a number of hypotheses to the effect that order could emerge from chaos. Yet despite all his endeavors, Prigogine failed to reconcile thermodynamics and evolution. This can clearly be seen in his following words:

There is another question, which has plagued us for more than a century: What significance does the evolution of a living being have in the world described by thermodynamics, a world of ever-increasing disorder? 220

Prigogine was aware that at the molecular level, the theories he had produced did not apply to living systems—a living cell, for instance. He set out the problem in these terms:

The problem of biological order involves the transition from the molecular activity to the super molecular order of the cell. This problem is far from being solved.221

The final point reached by the concept of Chaos Theory and the conjecture based on it is that no concrete result supporting and confirming evolution and eliminating the dichotomy between thermodynamics and evolution has ever been obtained. As in all other spheres, science once again reveals that with regard to thermodynamics, evolution is impossible and that there cannot be other explanation for the emergence of life than creation.

A species that does not already exist in nature cannot emerge through natural selection. Only handicapped or weak individuals can be eliminated from a species. The peppered moths are an excellent example of this. Trees became darker with the advent of the Industrial Revolution. In consequence, the lighter-colored moths that alighted on these trees became more visible to birds, and their numbers declined. There was also an increase in the numbers of surviving, darker moths. This is not, of course, evolution. No new species formed, and all that happened was the ratios changed of differently colored moths of the same species.

Industrial Melanism

In the 18th and 19th centuries, enormous changes took place in the industrial sphere first in Britain and then in other West European countries and America. Particularly in Great Britain, color changes were observed in some populations of animals due to the air pollution that increased with the Industrial Revolution. Industrial melanism is an expression of color changes allowed animals to camouflage themselves better.

The peppered moths in Britain are portrayed as one of the contemporary proofs of evolution by way of natural selection. Yet there is no evolution at work here, because no new species of moth emerged. The picture at top left shows pre-Industrial Revolution moths, and the one on at right shows trees and the moths on them following the Industrial Revolution.

Evolutionists attempt to account for these observed differences in color as natural selection under the pressure of environmental conditions. In fact, however, the situation stems from a complete misinterpretation of observed phenomena.

One evolutionist source sets out the position as follows:

The most striking contemporary example of this directed selection is the evolution of protective colouring demonstrated by two Oxford University researchers called Ford and Kettlewell. They discovered that one kind of moth living in regions of Britain with a large number of factory chimneys were darker than moths living in other regions. It is known from collections that specimens previously collected (before industrialisation) were lighter in colour. Since the lighter-coloured moths lived on white and light coloured lichens found around tree trunks outside industrial regions, they adapted well to their environment and were able to avoid attracting the notice of predator birds. In industrial areas, since the soot from the chimneys darkened these lichens, white moths began to become more visible. In contrast, dark-coloured moths were better adapted. Since birds hunted the white moths, darker moths began to predominate and the genotype possessed by these began increasing in the population. White forms have today again begun to predominate in those regions of Britain in which air pollution has been eradicated.222

The point to be noted here is the presence of black moths caught prior to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in Britain. In fact, this type of moth existed in Britain years before the Industrial Revolution. The change brought about by air pollution increased the likelihood of the white form, which had previously existed in large numbers, being seen by predators. As a result, there was a reduction in the numbers of this type and an increase in the numbers of darker moths. (See Peppered moths, the.)

It is clear that this change was in the numbers of the moths, not in their colors. This event can never be put forward as evidence of evolution. Proponents of the original creation of species accept this. In addition, even if there were a change in color as a result of mutation, this would still constitute no evidence for evolution, because the species of moth would still be the same species and would not have turned into any other. Evolution needs to scientifically prove that one species can evolve into another.

What is happening here is not evolution, but only normal variation. Natural selection is only a mechanism that prevents members of a given species from disappearing as a result of environmental changes. (See Variation.

The phenomena of variation and natural selection do not account for evolution in the way that by Darwin imagined. On the contrary, they’re excellent examples of a method of protection foreseen by creation. To put it another way, God has created all kinds of living things with systems to ensure their survival. An organism’s genetic system may be able to regulate its characteristics within certain bounds, according to changes in the surroundings. Otherwise, even minor changes in climate or food sources would spell the species’ death.

Many living things such as mammoths, dinosaurs, and flying reptiles have become extinct due to sudden environmental or climatic changes). These life forms disappeared when they were unable to adapt to environmental conditions exceeding the limits of the genetic potential they possessed when they were created. However, there is no scientific evidence that these turned into other species.

Since tree trunks became darker with soot in the wake of the Industrial Revolution, light-colored peppered moths were easier prey for birds and their numbers declined. This is not an example of evolution by natural selection, however, because no new species emerged. All that happened was that the characteristics of an existing species changed.

Peppered moths, the

Douglas Futuyma’s 1986 book Evolutionary Biology, is regarded as a reference that most clearly explains the theory of natural selection. The best-known of the examples cited by Futuyma is the darkening of the color of a moth population in Great Britain during the Industrial Revolution.

Before the Industrial Revolution began, the bark of trees in the Manchester area was light in color. Therefore, any dark-colored melanic moths landing on these trees were easily detected by birds and thus had little chance of survival. Fifty years of pollution later, however, the bark grew darker, after the death of the light-colored lichens on the trees, and now the lighter-colored moths fell prey to birds more often. As a result, as the number of light-colored moths declined, the dark-colored ones increased because they were less visible.

Evolutionists resort to the misleading claim that this process represents major evidence for evolution and that those lighter-colored moths gradually “evolved” into darker ones.

The fact is, though, this example cannot stand as evidence for evolution. The natural selection that took place did not give rise to the emergence of any new species that did not exist before. Black individuals already existed in the pre-Industrial Revolution population. All that changed was the characteristics of a species that already existed. Moths acquired no new organs or characteristics that would lead to species change. Whereas in order for a moth to turn into another distinct species, countless changes, additions and subtractions would have to occur in its genes. To put it another way, a whole new genetic program containing the physical characteristics of a new species would have to be loaded onto the moth.

Contrary to the impression evolutionists seek to give, it is impossible for natural selection to add or remove any organ from a living thing, and for that species to turn into another one. The strongest evidence on this subject since Darwin’s time is the tale of the peppered moths in Britain.

Yet there is an even more noteworthy aspect to the evolutionist “example” of the peppered moths. Not only is the interpretation of the story wrong, but so is the story itself. As the molecular biologist Jonathan Wells described in his 2000 book, Icons of Evolution, the reported tale of the Industrial-Revolution Moths does not reflect the true facts at all. (For detailed information, see The Evolution Deceit by Harun Yahya.)

Information theory

It is impossible for the information in DNA to have emerged through coincidences and natural processes.

This discipline investigates the structure and origin of the information in the universe. As a result of lengthy research, the conclusion reached by information theoreticians is that information is distinct from matter. It can never be reduced to matter. The sources of information and matter must be investigated separately.

For example, a book consists of paper, ink and the information within it. However, ink and paper are material elements. Their origin again lies in matter: Paper is composed of cellulose, and ink from various chemicals and dyes.

The information in a book, however, is not material and cannot have any material origin. The source of the information in every book is the mind of the author who wrote it.

Furthermore, this author also determines how this paper and ink are to be used. A book first takes shape in its author’s mind. The writer constructs a pattern and sets out sentences. He gives these a material form—turning the words in his mind into letters by way of a typewriter or computer. These letters later go to the printer and are turned into that book consisting of paper and ink.

From this, we may draw the general conclusion that if something contains information, then it must have been set out by a mind possessed of information. First, that mind translated the information it possessed into matter, and thus produced a design.

In their DNA, living things possess exceedingly wide-ranging information. A literal data bank describes all the physical details of an organism’s body in a space just 1/100,000th of a meter in size. In addition, there is also a system that reads this information in the living body, analyzes it, and sets about production accordingly. The information in the DNA in all of a living thing’s cells is read by various enzymes, and proteins are produced in the light of that information. Millions of proteins are produced every second in line with your body’s requirements. Thanks to this system, dead blood cells are replaced with living ones.

All the scientific research conducted in the 20th century, the results of all the experiments and all the observations, revealed that the information in DNA cannot be reduced to matter alone, as materialists would have us believe. To put it another way, it definitively rejects the idea that DNA is merely a collection of organic compounds and that all the information it contains came about as the result of chance interactions.

Professor Werner Gitt, director of the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, says:

A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor) . . . It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required. There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter. . . . 'There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this. 223

Gitt’s words reflect the same conclusions arrived at from the Information Theory developed over the last 20 to 30 years and which is regarded as a component of thermodynamics. George C. Williams, one of the most prominent adherents of the theory of evolution alive today, accepts this fact, which most materialists and evolutions are reluctant to admit. Despite having vigorously espoused materialism for many years, Williams in a 1995 article stated the error of the materialist (reductionistic) approach that assumes that everything consists of matter alone:

Evolutionary biologists have failed to realize that they work with two more or less incommensurable domains: that of information and that of matter. . . These two domains will never be brought together in any kind of the sense usually implied by the term “reductionism.” . . . The gene is a package of information, not an object. . . . In biology, when you're talking about things like genes and genotypes and gene pools, you're talking about information, not physical objective reality. . . . This dearth of shared descriptors makes matter and information two separate domains of existence, which have to be discussed separately, in their own terms. 224

Evolutionists occasionally admit their despair. One frankly spoken authority on this subject is the famous French zoologist Pierre Grassé, according to whom the most important fact to invalidate the Darwinist account is the information that constitutes life:

Any living being possesses an enormous amount of “intelligence,” very much more than is necessary to build the most magnificent of cathedrals. Today, this “"intelligence” is called information, but it is still the same thing. It is not programmed as in a computer, but rather it is condensed on a molecular scale in the chromosomal DNA or in that of every other organelle in each cell. This “intelligence” is the sine qua non of life. Where does it come from? . . . This is a problem that concerns both biologists and philosophers, and, at present, science seems incapable of solving it. . . . 225

Contrary to Grassé’s statement that science can never resolve this problem, all the scientific research that has been carried out invalidates the hypotheses of materialist philosophy and clearly proves the existence of a Creator—in other words, of God.

Irreducible complexity

The human eye functions through its 40 or so components all working in harmoniously together. If one of these is absent, the eye will serve no purpose. Each of these 40 components has its own very complex structure and must have been created simultaneously. The theory of evolution has no answer to the question of how such a complex organ came into being

One of the most important resources to question Darwinist theory in the face of scientific findings is the criteria put forward by Darwin himself!

In proposing his theory, Darwin also set out a number of concrete measures about how his theory might be disproved. There are passages beginning with the words “If my theory is true . . .”in many chapters of The Origin of Species, and in those passages, Darwin describes the findings needed to prove his theory. One of them reads:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.226

Darwinism accounts for the origin of living things in terms of two unconscious natural mechanisms: natural selection and random changes, caused by mutations. According to Darwinist theory, these two mechanisms gave rise to the complex structure of the living cell, the complex body systems of living things, eyes, ears, wings, lungs, bat sonar and millions of other complex and sophisticated designs.

However, it is unscientific and illogical to claim that all these systems with their exceptionally complex structures are the product of two unconscious natural phenomena. At this point, Darwinism resorts to the concept of reducibility. It is maintained that all the systems in question were once far simpler states, and that they then developed in stages. Each stage provided the living species in question with a slightly greater advantage, and it will thus be favored by way of natural selection. Yet another small, accidental change will later take place, and that will also constitute an advantage and improve the individual’s chances, and the whole process will continue running along those lines.

Thanks to this process, according to the Darwinist claim, a species that initially had no eyes at all would come to possess a flawless pair, and another species previously unable to fly would develop wings and take to the air.

These evolutionist scenarios are related in a very convincing and reasonable-seeming style. Examined in slightly greater detail, however, it appears that there is a major error in place. The first misconception is that mutations are destructive occurrences, rather than beneficial ones. In other words, the idea that random mutations affecting a species can endow it with some advantage—and continue to do so, thousands of times in succession—is a violation of all scientific observations.

However, there is a still more important error at work. Note that Darwinist theory requires every stage in the progression (for instance, from a wingless animal to a winged one) to be advantageous. Thus in any evolutionary process from A to Z, all the intermediate stages—B, C, D … through to W, X and Y— must all bestow separate advantages on the species that evolves. Since it is impossible for natural selection and mutation to consciously determine an objective beforehand, the whole theory depends on living systems being capable of “being reduced” to small, advantageous changes.

That is why Darwin said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed. . . .”

Given the primitive level of science in the 19th century, Darwin may well have thought that living things did have a reducible structure. However, 20th century scientific findings revealed that many systems and organs in living things were actually irreducible. This phenomenon, known as irreducible complexity, definitively demolished Darwinism in exactly the way that Darwin feared.

The human eye’s structure cannot be reduced to a more simple form, and is a clear example of such a system. The eye cannot function at all unless all its components exist together and function properly. The consciousness that produces such a complex structure needs to calculate beforehand the benefits to be obtained at the very final stage. It is absolutely impossible, however, for the mechanisms of evolution to produce complex organs through consciousness and will.

Isolation

When populations are divided by some geographic obstacle, the gene pools (representing the populations’ genetic structure) of populations living in the two different environments may be found to change. The further apart populations move from one another, the greater the potential increase in the differences between them. Isolation giving rise to population changes may be geographic, economic, cultural or climatic. 227(Geographic Isolation theory.)

These two populations separated from one another for whatever reason—generally geographic isolation—may lose the ability to interbreed with each other. As a natural consequence of this, the genetic combination of each population remains restricted. Evolutionists refer to every effect that prevents mating and effective fertilization between populations as isolation or as an isolation mechanism. According to evolutionists, isolation that restricts reproduction is essential for species formation.228 One evolutionist source describes this essential requirement:

No species can separate from another in the absence of this; and if ever it did, it could never survive independently. What if all animals mated freely with one another and were able to reproduce among themselves? The result would be a convergence leading to the disappearance of all zoological units. In other words, no dog, horse, cat or cow would have a separate existence; they would be just combinations of all animals. Because the distinction between animals and human beings would be lost, there would be many human-like animals and animal-like humans. Eventually a most fascinating mongrel would emerge from the combination of all these. Since reproduction is unrestricted on the streets we see various mongrel breeds among dogs. Since dogs all belong to separate breeds they produce mongrels among themselves. That is why dog breeders take care to use only pedigree breeds in order to maintain specific characteristics. If this were not done, then peculiar mongrel breeds from a mixture of all dogs.229

Evolutionists try to account for the origin of species in terms of isolation. But the question of how so many thousands of species emerged on Earth is exceedingly hard for evolutionists to answer. Therefore, they deliberately use the concept of isolation as the mechanism that brings new species into being. However, no new species comes into being through isolation. That merely enables the emergence of different variants, stemming from a narrowing of the gene pool. At the basis of speciation, there is no genetic incompatibility stemming from division into two groups. These life forms will still belong to the same species, in terms of their overall genetic information.

Therefore, there is nothing about the speciation that supports the theory of evolution, which claims that all living species evolved from the simple to the complex in a random manner. This means that if evolution is to be taken seriously, it must be able to point to mechanisms that increase genetic information. It must be able to explain how life forms originally lacking eyes, ears, a heart, lungs, wings, feet or other organs and systems managed to acquire them, and where the genetic information describing these organs and systems came from.

No doubt that the division of an already existing species into two, suffering a loss of genetic diversity, has absolutely nothing to do with this.

The fact that subspecies are not evolving into new species is actually admitted even by evolutionists. For that reason, evolutionists describe examples of variations within a species and of speciation by division as micro-evolution. (See Micro-evolution.)

Micro-evolution is used in the sense of variants emerging within an already existing species. However, the use of the term evolution here is deliberately intended to mislead, because there is no such process going on. What is happening consists of different combinations of genetic information that already exists in that species’ gene pool being distribution in different populations of individuals.

Evolutionists need to answer such questions as, “How did the first species come into existence?” and “How did the categories above species, the classes, orders, families etc. initially come into existence?” that.

NOTES

219.Henry Gee, In Search Of Deep Time: Beyond The Fossil Record To A New H›story Of Life, New York: The Free Press, A Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1999, p. 54.

You can read Harun Yahya's book The Evolution Impasse I online, share it on social networks such as Facebook and Twitter, download it to your computer, use it in your homework and theses, and publish, copy or reproduce it on your own web sites or blogs without paying any copyright fee, so long as you acknowledge this site as the reference.